Neo-Cons Hypocritically Leverage "Human Rights" Against China

Propaganda accommodated to "the comprehension of the least intelligent."an editorial by Tony Cartalucci

May 1, 2012 - A man who has championed every war America has fought in recent history, as well as desperately pleading to start a wide array of wars yet fought, including against Syria and Iran, and who has played a part in devising and supporting military campaigns that have cost millions of lives, millions more maimed, displaced or otherwise affected, would be the last person one would expect to peddle "human rights." And especially, one would not suspect such a man to make the bold claim that the United States, whose enforced sanctions against Iraq alone killed over a million women and children through starvation, is the "the greatest champion of human rights in the world."

Yet that is exactly what Max Boot, a Council on Foreign Relations member, as well as a contributor to a myriad of Neo-Conservative, pro-war corporate-financier funded think-tanks, has done.

Image: Congressman Christopher Smith poses with Reggie Littlejohn of the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB), donning sunglasses in "solidarity" with the "blind activist" Chen Guangcheng. CUSIB is entwined with US government, corporate-financier-backed propaganda including Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio and TV Marti, Radio Sawa, Alhurra TV - all US taxpayer funded and overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It illustrates once again the unified agenda of both Neo-Cons like Max Boot and "liberals" like Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. It also represents but one bizarre facet of an unfolding charade the US is attempting to use against China ahead of talks aimed at exacting concessions on everything from economic policy to yielding to the West over Syria.

....

Max Boot makes his astounding comments regarding the recent row between the United States, their long-cultivated "activist," Chen Guangcheng (also known as the "blind activist"), and the government of China whom the United States is preparing to meet with for talks. Clearly Max Boot represents a cadre of individuals who have been in reality the greatest violators of human rights in the world, and thus, his column in "Commentary" titled, "Standing Up for Human Rights in China," is an astounding and transparent example of the exploitation of otherwise noble principles.

Boot of course never mentions the fact that Chen has been built up over the years through a US State Department marketing campaign involving their National Endowment for Democracy (NED) front and various Chinese "NGOs" directly funded by and reporting to NED. These include ChinaAid and China Digital Times who were admitted as NED grantees in NED's own publication, "Democracy Digest."

It should be mentioned that NED's board of directors, like Boot, are card-carrying Neo-Conservatives, pro-war, and represent some of the largest corporate-financier interests on Earth - whose policies and actions directly contradict NED's alleged mission of "supporting freedom around the world."

Boot also fails to mention the fact that China's "forced sterilization and abortion policies" are funded and supported, even whitewashed by the UN Population Fund - which is itself directly funded by the US. The UN also coincidentally served as a vehicle for Boot and his colleagues' crimes against humanity, most recently in Libya. China's policies were also designed, pioneered, and carried out globally by predominantly American and British eugenicists - including the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and even USAID who was caught forcibly sterilizing hundreds of thousands of Peruvian women in the late 1990's. It was in fact the Anglo-Americans who laid the ground work, and even literally the German programs that Hilter's genocidal eugenics cult rose from.

So then one is left asking whether Boot's column is satire or if he truly believes his readership is so poorly informed, so intellectually stunted, and so emotionally compromised that they will believe his rhetoric at face value. Or perhaps Boot's column is simply a template for the compromised corporate media to copy and paste from, as we see Reuters already doing here - echoing Boot's talking point a day later, regarding Chen's humiliating China's internal security apparatus.

Indeed, a long-cultivated US State Department asset making a "miraculous escape" on the eve of a high profile meeting between US and Chinese representatives, after China has repeatedly blocked US ambitions to ravage Syria - a war Boot is an ecstatic proponent of - is yet another example of how the West's most ghoulish mechanization are propelled with facades constructed of the most noble intentions for the expressed purpose of putting pressure on those resisting them. Undoubtedly the corporate-media will spread to the four corners of the globe Boot's talking points, preying on anyone unwilling to spend the five minutes it takes to look behind the curtain and see what is truly at work.